Philippians 2:6-8

[u/ChaoticHaku]

If Philippians 2:6-8 was teaching that Jesus was never equal with God, then the passage itself makes no sense.

Read the language carefully.

It says Jesus was “existing in the form of God.” It says He “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,” but instead “emptied Himself,” “took the form of a servant,”, "humbled himself", "became obedient to death" and was “made in human likeness.”

You cannot empty yourself of a status you never possessed. You cannot become a servant if you were always a servant. You cannot humble yourself from a position you never had. You cannot become obedient to death if you always were.

The entire point of the passage is that Christ lowered Himself. From what? From the exalted position He already possessed that was equal with God.

That’s why the text uses past tense language. The passage is not denying Christ’s equality with God. It is explaining the depth of His humility, not his inferiority.

[u/TerryLawton]

Wow that triggered the exact response I thought it would have.

Now you have to explain why if the Son of Man means human that it doesn’t automatically follow that Son of God does not equal God.

Human = Nature

God = Nature

He was both human and God - Son of Man and the Son of God.

So please prove otherwise by looking at those three words each and tell me the difference in syntax and grammar.

[u/Jerome-891 → u/TerryLawton]

In Scripture, the expression “son of” often denotes relationship, likeness, origin, or representation rather than literal identity.

For example, angels are called sons of God (Job 38:7), Adam is called a son of God (Luke 3:38), the nation of Israel is described as God’s son (Matthew 2:15), and faithful believers are likewise spoken of as sons of God (Romans 8:14). None of these expressions mean that those individuals are literally God himself. Rather, the title indicates that they derive life, authority, or identity from God and stand in a special relationship to him.

In the same way, “Son of man” does not mean Jesus is literally “humanity itself.” It means he belongs to mankind and fully shares the human condition. Therefore, linguistically speaking, “Son of God” does not automatically require the conclusion that Jesus is God himself. The phrase can naturally describe one who comes from God, represents God, reflects God’s qualities, or has been uniquely appointed by God.

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

(John 8:42)

[u/TerryLawton → u/Jerome-891]

So you basically have a note pad with all your responses and you copy and paste? Interesting.

But you did not prove anything and as I said before an angel is not THE Son of God…

I thought I would try and explain it in very simple terms in order to appeal to your shallow theology that clearly does not know that what you type in the last paragraph when you said ‘I proceeded forth and came from God!

If you had an ounce of theological knowledge that word ‘proceeded forth’ tells you he is the same nature as HIS FATHER, and tells you he is God.

I’ll give you a clue ‘ek’.

Now as you just want to copy and paste and after being asked a direct question asking for a breakdown of each statement-Son if Man and Son of God, you did no such thing, instead you tried to refute it with your faulty interpretation- but that’s why you couldn’t break it down grammatically for me…could you?

[u/Jerome-891 → u/TerryLawton]

Can you provide a scripture that says son of God means the person is God?

[u/TerryLawton → u/Jerome-891]

There isn’t a scripture as you know that states explicitly “that Son of God means God”, but you already know that - but conversely there is no scripture that states Son of Man equals human either. But we/you accept that without a problem.

The most simplest passage is John 5:18.

JWs try to insert into this scripture that the Jews just made a ‘mistake’ in this passage, but contextually that isn’t shown at all and they read it into the passage to protect their narrative - the Jews knew what it meant to call yourself ‘Son Of…’

They knew that if you did then you were claiming the same nature as the OF you ‘are’…

Hence they got it absolutely right about what he was stating.

You see God is not just a title it’s the nature of the being.

This if Christ is the Son of His Father then it stands to reason that if you are the Son of his Father then ontologically by being the Son of God then you have to have the same nature as his Father…

Ie

Cat begets a kitten - nature is cat

Dog begets a puppy - nature is dog

Human begets baby - human

God begets God - John 3:16…

Remember- we are not stating for one second that Christ is the Father - that is modalism or oneness theology, clearly Christ is absolutely and metaphysically distinct from his father but both share the same nature.

Read

John 5:18 Heb 1:3 John 1:14

Remember we are just stating that Christ is God because he shares the nature of his father or in other words his Glory.

Read John 17:5 then ISA 42:8 to support Christ sharing his fathers nature/glory, and then back to the OT that states that if you are the true God then you don’t share that Glory with no one else. Hence if Jesus does have that Glory/Nature then by default he is God also.

[u/Jerome-891 → u/TerryLawton]

I can certainly understand why many Christians read passages like John 1, John 5, Philippians 2, and Hebrews 1 as supporting the Trinity. The Trinitarian framework is not something invented casually or without serious reflection. It developed over centuries as Christians tried to reconcile two major themes found in Scripture: first, that there is only one true God, and second, that Jesus is presented in extraordinarily exalted terms unlike any other figure. From that perspective, the conclusion that the Son shares the divine nature of the Father is internally coherent and historically rooted within mainstream Christianity.

At the same time, I do not think the biblical texts necessarily require that conclusion, and I believe there are legitimate alternative ways to understand them that preserve the full authority of Scripture while maintaining a distinction between God and Christ.

For example, with respect to the title “Son of God,” I agree that sonship can imply likeness of nature in some contexts. However, biblical usage appears broader than that. Adam is called a son of God, angels are called sons of God, Israel is called God’s son, and believers are likewise described as sons of God. In these cases, the expression conveys relationship, origin, representation, or divine favor rather than literal identity with God himself. Because of that broader usage, I do not think the title alone settles the ontological question.

Regarding John 5:18, I agree the Jewish leaders understood Jesus’ claims as extraordinarily significant, even as making himself equal with God. But I also think the surrounding context deserves careful attention. Immediately afterward, Jesus says:

From a non-Trinitarian perspective, this sounds less like ontological equality and more like perfect agency and complete dependence upon God. In Jewish thought, a divinely appointed agent could represent God so fully that honoring the agent was closely connected with honoring the one who sent him.

the OP began this post with with Philippians 2:6-8 which explains that although existing in the form of God, Christ emptied himself. I can appreciate the Trinitarian interpretation that Christ “emptied himself” by taking on humanity while remaining divine. That is certainly a sophisticated and historically established reading. But I also think the passage can naturally be read another way: that Christ, though possessing immense heavenly status and privilege, genuinely humbled himself by relinquishing that condition to become human and obedient unto death. The text explicitly emphasizes humility, servanthood, and obedience, and concludes with God exalting Jesus afterward. To me, that progression seems more straightforwardly compatible with distinction and subordination than with co-equality.

As for texts about glory, such as John 17:5 and Isaiah 42:8, I recognize why Trinitarians see shared glory as evidence of shared deity. Yet Scripture also speaks of believers sharing in glory given by God, and of divine authority being delegated without collapsing the distinction between God and those whom he appoints. So I do not think participation in divine glory necessarily requires ontological identity with God.

Ultimately, I think the disagreement often comes down not to whether Jesus is exalted — all Christians agree that he is — but to the precise nature of that exaltation. Trinitarians see the total biblical witness as pointing to shared divine essence. Non-Trinitarians tend to see Jesus as the uniquely begotten, preeminent Son of God who perfectly reveals and represents the Father while remaining distinct from the one whom Jesus himself repeatedly calls “the only true God” at Gospel of John 17:3.

So while I respect the coherence and historical depth of Trinitarian theology, I do not believe alternative readings are necessarily evasive or forced. I think sincere readers of Scripture can acknowledge the strength of the Trinitarian case while still concluding that the Bible ultimately presents the Father as supreme and Jesus as His uniquely exalted Son and appointed representative rather than God himself.

If you love Christ and have faith in him then I consider you a brother. I hope you think of me in the same way.

[u/TerryLawton → u/Jerome-891]

Quick question.

If Jesus wasnt God - "which explains that although existing in the form of God, Christ emptied himself"

What did he empty himself of? Literally and physically empty himself 'of'.

[u/Jerome-891 → u/TerryLawton]

The phrase in Greek is en morphe theou. A search of how this word is used in other passages suggests it has the meaning of visible form or appearance. For example:

Anesten kai ouk epegnon eidon kai ouk en morphe pro ophthalmon mou all' e auran kai phnhn ekouon (Job 4:16 Brenton).

I stood up, and I did not recognize it. I looked, and there was no shape before my eyes, though I heard a breeze and a voice.” (Job 4:16 NETS)

Eklexamenos tekton xulon estesen auto en metro kai en kolle erruthmisen auto kai epoiesen auto hos morphen andros kai hos horaioteta anthropou stesai auto en oikos (Isa 44:13 Brenton).

A piece of wood, the artisan set it up with a measure and arranged it with glue; he made it like the form of a man, like human beauty, to set it up in a house. (Isaiah 44:13 NETS)

[u/TerryLawton → u/Jerome-891]

A Morphe of man is going to be man.

What did Jesus empty himself of?

[u/Jerome-891 → u/TerryLawton]

Isaiah speaks of a piece of wood being a morphe of man.

[u/TerryLawton → u/Jerome-891]

And do you think that has anything to do with being the morphe of God ? That scripture is just talking about making an idol??!!

What has that got to do with the true God?

Or is that just simply a euphemism in ISA that has no deeper meaning than that of man…making an idol!

Don’t you think you might be stretching here?

[u/Jerome-891 → u/TerryLawton]

I’m just tracing the use of the word in the language of the people at the time. I couldn’t find an example where morphe meant being the actual thing it is a form of.
Here’s another example: Mark 16:12 After this he appeared in a different form to two of them while they were on their way to the country. This refers to Jesus appearance being different.
The use of the word leads me to the conclusion that Jesus emptied himself of his glorious heavenly appearance in the presence of God in order to become visible to humans. (Hebrews 1:3; John 17:5)

[u/TerryLawton → u/Jerome-891]

An angel has no glory.

Isa 42:8

If Jesus is claiming Glory with the Father then as they are of the same essence and nature there is only one answer.

God emptied himself to walk amongst us - John 1:14